The New York State Adult Drug Court Evaluation

Transcription

1 520 Eighth Avenue, 18 th Floor New York, New York fax The New York State Adult Drug Court Evaluation Policies, Participants and Impacts Michael Rempel, Dana Fox-Kralstein, Amanda Cissner, Robyn Cohen, Melissa Labriola, Donald Farole, Ann Bader and Michael Magnani Submitted to the New York State Unified Court System and the U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance October 2003

2

3 Acknowledgements This report was made possible with the cooperation and assistance of a great number of individuals. We would first like to thank the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Its support over more than four years was instrumental in developing New York s statewide management information system and research capacity (contract # 98-DC-VX-0090) as well as in conducting the present evaluation (contract # DC-VX-0085). In addition, all of the eleven drug courts discussed at length in this report were assisted in their start-up periods with federal funding. We are grateful to the Honorable Judith S. Kaye, New York State s Chief Judge, the Honorable Jonathan Lippman, Chief Administrative Judge, and the Honorable Ann Pfau, Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for Management Support, for their longstanding leadership and support of innovative court projects throughout New York State and their commitment to statewide data collection and evaluation research. We would like to express our deep appreciation to Michele Sviridoff, who was the original director of this project. We thank her for her vision and continued encouragement throughout the research process. We also benefited from her thoughtful feedback on an earlier version of the report. We also thank Emily Horowitz, who was the lead analyst (with Robyn Cohen, who also co-authored this report) on a related two-year project preceding this one. Its purpose was to develop New York s automated management information system and to conceptualize the key drug court performance indicators that should be routinely tracked on a statewide basis. Steve Greenstein was our primary contact at the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS), the source of all criminal history and recidivism data. We thank him for his unfailingly rapid turnaround time on all of our questions (of which there were many) and for his patience as we worked through several ambiguities in matching DCJS to drug court program data. The authors are solely responsible for the final methodology and results obtained with the DCJS data. We are also grateful to Janice Munsterman of the National Institute of Justice for reviewing and providing helpful comments on an earlier version of the report. And we thank John Bremer for his guidance in developing the methodology used in impact analyses. In October 2000, the New York State Office of Court Drug Treatment Programs (OCDTP) was created, and a Deputy Chief Administrative Judge, the Honorable Joseph J. Traficanti, Jr., was appointed its Director. We are deeply grateful to Judge Traficanti, Mizzi Diamond, and their entire staff for their ongoing leadership of statewide drug court institutionalization efforts, their support of the project, and their valuable comments in reviewing an earlier draft of the report. We would like to thank each of the adult drug courts that completed a drug court survey for this research project (list of drug courts in Appendix D). In addition we would like to thank all operational adult drug courts statewide for completing quarterly reports. These reports allowed Acknowledgements Page i

4 the research team to work with the courts on data quality issues in order to have reliable data for the statewide evaluation. We thank each of them for their continued assistance and cooperation. In the course of the project, we conducted site visits at nine drug courts. We are grateful to staff at each one for their tremendous generosity with both time and insights. We would like to express our appreciation to all of the individuals listed below, whom we interviewed during the site visits. We regrettably did not retain the names of several others, but would like to simply extend a note of thanks to the entire staff of all nine programs: Bronx: Honorable Laura Safer-Espinoza, Rita McCoy, Martha Epstein, Maggie Marcano, Romero Lundy, Angela Blair-Adams, Fran Levitov, William Rosario, and Fred Casale. Brooklyn: Honorable Jo Ann Ferdinand, Jayme Delano, Justin Barry, Gerianne Abriano, and Michele O Meally. Ithaca: Honorable Judith Rossiter, Desiree Rogers, Ellis Bozzola, Eileen Summers, Linda Gafford, Adam Abelson, Elizabeth Costello, Kate Gefell, Barbara Logan, Darlene Desmond, and Marilyn Ray, the latter of whom conducted the Ithaca process evaluation. Lackawanna: Honorable Frederic Marrano, Tom Kubiniec, Robert Lonski, Brenda Cash, Guy Pelino, Kim Delmont, Kathi Chaplin, and Jamie Hermann (the latter of whom we interviewed from her current position as Coordinator of Rochester s Integrated Domestic Violence Court). Manhattan: Honorable Laura Ward, Russ Novack, Debra Hall-Martin, Desiree Rivera, Shuva Dutta, and Sabrina Lebron. Queens: Honorable Leslie Leach, Rosalind Muir, Lisa Babb, Sharon Scott Brooking, Donna Haase, Bob Sharoff, Byron McCray, Charisse Rainey, and Sky Davis. Rochester: Honorable John Schwartz, Honorable Joseph Valentino, Honorable Roy King, Sherry Lintz, Connie Hart, Lorraine Beeman, Sandy Petrella, Connie Roselli, Cheri Beschler, Deborah Stritzel, Mary Signor, Colleen Sullivan, Heather Byrne, Kelly Gormely, Frank Pellegrino, and Ariadna Simmons. Suffolk: Honorable Salvatore Alamia, Edward Gialella, Barbara Abrams, Heather Johnston, James Mullan, and Shelly Cohen, the latter of whom conducted the Suffolk process evaluation. (Staff at the Suffolk Treatment Court extended themselves twice on separate site visits conducted by different members of the research team, and we appreciate their availability.) Syracuse: Honorable Jeffrey Merrill, Kim Kozlowski, Kristin Fenn, Pat Quinn, Jerry Harrell, case management staff at the Center for Community Alternatives (CCA), and Elaine Wolf, also of CCA, who was lead coauthor of the Syracuse process evaluation. Acknowledgements Page ii

5 From Rochester, a special thanks to Sherry Lintz for her valuable contributions to this project which went above and beyond her normal work schedule. We would like to extend an added note of thanks to Cheri Beschler for her time and effort. Her assistance was invaluable in obtaining needed drug court criminal case information on drug court participants as well as information necessary for us to create a comparison group. We would also like to thank Judge Schwartz and Lorraine Beeman for their help in determining the drug court participation and outcome status of certain cases processed before the Rochester Treatment Court began using the state s automated management information system. Similarly, from Buffalo, we appreciate the assistance of Hank Pirowski and Jose Ferrer, whose input helped us to properly code and interpret data from the Buffalo Treatment Court s separate management information system. For managing New York s drug court technology we thank Joe Lombardo, Steve Barry and Sui Duan from the Division of Technology at the Office of Court Administration, and Tatyana Piskareva, Senior Programmer of the system used at the Brooklyn Treatment Court. Many of the same individuals with whom we spoke during site visits also graciously took time to review an earlier draft of the report. We are again indebted to Martha Epstein and Judge Safer-Espinoza (Bronx); Jayme Delano and Judge Ferdinand (Brooklyn); Hank Pirowski and the Honorable Robert Russell (Buffalo); the Honorable Marjorie Olds and the Honorable John Rowley (Ithaca); Jamie Hermann and Judge Marrano (Lackawanna); Debra Hall-Martin and Judge Ward (Manhattan); Rosalind Muir and Judge Leach (Queens); Judge King (Rochester); Barbara Abrams, Edward Gialella, Shelly Cohen and Judge Alamia (Suffolk); Kim Kozlowski and Judge Merrill (Syracuse); and Jeff Smith and the Honorable Joseph Cassata (Tonawanda). The many thoughtful comments we received led to substantial improvements in the accuracy and clarity of the final report, for which we are truly grateful. Finally, from the Center for Court Innovation, Leslie Paik served as research intern during the summer of 2002, when she conducted background research for the literature review of prior recidivism studies and drafted tables included in Appendix E. Valerie Raine provided valuable comments on an earlier version of the report. We also thank Greg Berman and John Feinblatt, the current and former director of the Center, for their guidance and direction. And we are grateful to Greg Berman as well for his insightful comments on an earlier version of the report. Finally, we thank the entire Center Research Department for input during several staff presentations. This research is supported under awards #2000-DC-VX-0085 and #98-DC-VX-0090 from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs of the U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions and interpretations expressed in this report are ultimately those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice, the New York State Unified Court System, or the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services. Acknowledgements Page iii

6

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements Executive Summary i ix Part One. Description of Drug Court Policies and Participants Chapter 1. Introduction 3 The Adult Drug Court Model 4 Policy Context: The Institutionalization of Drug Courts in New York State 5 The New York State Drug Court Evaluation 8 Chapter 2. Drug Court Policies 13 Methodology 13 Paper Eligibility 14 Clinical Eligibility 16 Initiating Participation 18 First Treatment Modality 18 Program Completion 20 Innovative Programs 25 Chapter 3. Profile of Drug Court Participants 29 Methodology 29 Jurisdiction Characteristics 30 Comparing New York s Drug Courts 31 Differences between Male and Female Participants 37 Differences between Graduates and Failures 43 Summary 43 Part Two. The Treatment and Recovery Process Chapter 4. The Treatment Component of Drug Courts 47 Models of Drug Court-Treatment Provider Relationships 47 Treatment Capacity: Time to First Treatment Placement 50 First Treatment Modality 53 Modifications to the Treatment Plan 57 Length of Drug Court Participation 59 Summary 60 Chapter 5. Participant Compliance During Program Participation 63 Drug Tests and Warrants 63 Other Infractions 66 Sanctions 68 Summary 69 Table of Contents Page v

8 Chapter 6. The Relationship between Infractions and Sanctions at Three Drug Courts 71 The Graduated Sanctions Model 71 Other Sanctioning Models 72 Results of the Analysis 73 Summary and Discussion 77 Future Research Questions 78 Chapter 7. Additional Achievements During Drug Court Participation 79 Achievements of Drug Court Graduates 79 Summary 82 Part Three. Drug Court Retention and Recidivism Chapter 8. Drug Court Retention Rates 85 Retention Rates 85 The Impact of Year of Entry on Retention 87 Summary 88 Chapter 9. Predictors of Success in Drug Courts 91 Possible Predictors of Drug Court Success 91 Data and Methodology 96 Results 98 Discussion 107 Summary 113 Part Four. Impact Evaluation Chapter 10. Review of Prior Recidivism Studies 117 Meta-Analyses: The Findings of Systematic Literature Reviews 117 Original Results: The Impact of Drug Court on Recidivism 118 Summary 123 Chapter 11. Research Design and Analysis Plan 125 Comparison Group Identification 125 Implementation of Propensity Score Matching 128 Recidivism Measurement Periods and Measures 131 The Challenge of Analyzing Post-Program Recidivism 133 Common Analysis Plan for All Six Impact Evaluations 135 Summary 137 Chapter 12. Impact Evaluation of the Bronx Treatment Court 139 The Bronx Treatment Court Model 139 Research Design and Methodology 143 Impact on Post-Arrest Recidivism 146 Impact on Post-Program Recidivism 151 Impact on Recidivism for Select Offender Subgroups 154 Summary 155 Table of Contents Page vi

9 Chapter 13. Impact Evaluation of the Brooklyn Treatment Court 157 The Brooklyn Treatment Court Model 157 Previous Impact Evaluation Results 162 Research Design and Methodology 163 Impact on Post-Arrest Recidivism 169 Impact on Post-Program Recidivism 173 Impact on Recidivism for Select Offender Subgroups 177 Summary 178 Chapter 14. Impact Evaluation of the Queens Treatment Court 179 The Queens Treatment Court Model 179 Research Design and Methodology 183 Impact on Post-Arrest Recidivism 187 Impact on Post-Program Recidivism 190 Impact on Recidivism for Select Offender Subgroups 193 Summary 195 Chapter 15. Impact Evaluation of the Suffolk County Drug Treatment Court 197 The Suffolk County Drug Treatment Court Model 197 Research Design and Methodology 202 Impact on Post-Arrest Recidivism 205 Impact on Post-Program Recidivism 210 Impact on Recidivism for Select Offender Subgroups 212 Summary 216 Chapter 16. Impact Evaluation of the Syracuse Community Treatment Court 217 The Syracuse Community Treatment Court Model 217 Research Design and Methodology 222 Impact on Post-Arrest Recidivism 226 Impact on Post-Program Recidivism 231 Impact on Recidivism for Select Offender Subgroups 234 Summary 236 Chapter 17. Impact Evaluation of the Rochester Drug Treatment Court 239 The Rochester Drug Treatment Court Model 240 Previous Evaluation Results 244 Research Design and Methodology 244 Impact on Post-Arrest Recidivism 251 Impact on Post-Program Recidivism 256 Impact on Recidivism for Select Offender Subgroups 260 Summary 262 Chapter 18. Impact on Case Processing and Outcomes 265 Methodology 266 Case Processing 268 Case Outcomes 269 Summary 271 Table of Contents Page vii

10 Chapter 19. Summary of Impact Evaluation Findings 273 Impact of Drug Courts on Recidivism 273 Impact of Drug Courts on Case Processing 281 Impact of Drug Courts on Case Outcomes 281 Summary 281 Conclusions Chapter 20. Conclusions 285 The Drug Court Participation Process 285 Drug Court Impacts 287 Future Directions 289 References 293 Appendices 299 Appendix A NYS Adult Drug Court Survey 4/ Appendix B NYS Adult Drug Court Update Survey 7/ Appendix C Buffalo-specific Methodology 315 Appendix D Drug Courts Policies Supplemental Courts 317 Appendix E Recidivism Rates 323 Appendix F Two-Year Post-Intake Drug and Felony Recidivism 327 Appendix G Changes in Drug Court Policies 329 List of Tables and Figures 331 Table of Contents Page viii

11 Executive Summary By combining drug treatment with ongoing judicial supervision, drug courts seek to break the cycle of addiction, crime, and repeat incarceration. While practice varies widely from state to state (and county to county), the outlines of the drug court model are clear: addicted offenders are linked to treatment; their progress is monitored by a drug court team composed of the judge, attorneys, and program staff; participants engage in direct interaction with the judge, who responds to progress and setbacks with a range of rewards and sanctions; and successful participants generally have the charges against them dismissed or reduced, while those who fail receive jail or prison sentences. This report evaluates adult drug courts in New York State, one of a handful of states that is engaged in a coordinated effort to institutionalize drug courts statewide. With funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice, the Center for Court Innovation, in collaboration with the New York State Unified Court System, has spent the past three years documenting the policies, participant characteristics, and performance of participants in eleven of the state s oldest and largest drug courts. Among other analyses, this report evaluates the impact of six drug courts on recidivism and identifies the participant characteristics and programmatic features that increase the likelihood of successful drug court outcomes. Methodology This report includes an analysis of drug court policies and participant characteristics in eleven drug courts. 1 Four are from large urban counties of New York City (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Queens); one is suburban (Suffolk); three are from medium-sized cities (Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo); and three are from small city/semi-rural areas (Tonawanda, Lackawanna, and Ithaca). This study is also among the first to demonstrate consistent and meaningful recidivism impacts across a large number of sites and over a relatively long-term tracking period. At each of six sites, the recidivism analyses compare the reconviction rates of drug court participants with similar defendants not entering the drug court. These comparisons include among the longest measurement periods in the research literature at least three years following the initial arrest (four years in Brooklyn and Rochester); and, in separate analyses, at least one year after program completion or final case disposition (two years in Brooklyn and Rochester). 2 1 Quantitative findings were based on analyses of program participation data provided by the New York State Unified Court System and criminal history and recidivism data provided by the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services. Drug court policy information was obtained from two surveys administered in April 2001 and July 2002; and from stakeholder interviews and court observations during site visits at nine of the eleven courts. 2 The post-program period begins on the graduation date for drug court graduates, the release date from jail or prison for drug court failures, and, for the comparison group on the release date or if there was no sentence of incarceration on the disposition date. Defendants were assumed to serve two-thirds of any jail sentence (a standard good time assumption) and the minimum prison sentence if there was a range. Executive Summary Page ix

12 In developing comparison group criteria, a uniform set of research design principles was implemented. Comparison defendants had to have no contact with the drug court on the instant case, meet the same paper eligibility criteria as drug court participants, and be convicted on the instant case. In four sites (Bronx, Queens, Suffolk, and Syracuse), the comparison group consisted of defendants arrested just prior to the opening of the drug court. In two sites (Brooklyn and Rochester), the comparison group consisted of defendants arrested during a contemporaneous period but who were not referred to the drug court for reasons unrelated to program eligibility or defendant interest in participating. 3 For each site, comparison samples were further refined using a propensity score matching methodology (e.g., see Rubin 1973; and Rosenbaum and Rubin 1983). Propensity score matching is among the strongest methodological alternatives to random assignment, since the approach ensures that each drug court s final comparison sample closely matches the drug court participant sample across a range of important background characteristics, such as sex, age, race/ethnicity, specific charges and criminal history. Impact on Recidivism All six drug courts (Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Suffolk, Syracuse, and Rochester) produced recidivism reductions compared with conventional case processing. The six courts represent a mix of geographic areas and policies (e.g., regarding eligibility criteria, screening and assessment protocols, graduation requirements, approach to sanctions, and supplemental services). Since the measurement periods tracked defendants at least three years after the initial arrest and at least one year after program completion, the results indicate that positive drug court impacts are durable over time. The six drug courts generated an average 29% recidivism reduction over the three-year postarrest period and an average 32% reduction over the one-year post-program period. Major findings are as follows: Reduced post-arrest recidivism: Drug court participation led to a lower probability of recidivism three years after the initial arrest (significant in five courts and p <.10 in the sixth). Depending on the drug court, recidivism reductions ranged from 13% to 47% (average reduction = 29%) relative to the comparison group level. Reduced post-program recidivism: Drug court impacts extended beyond the period of program participation. Drug court participation led to a lower probability of recidivism at one year post-program (significant in three courts, p <.10 in one court, and suggested by the numbers but not significant in two). Post-program recidivism reductions ranged from 19% to 52% (average reduction = 32%). 3 In the first four years of the Brooklyn program, defendants were not routed to the drug court if arrested in two of five geographic arrest zones in Brooklyn; hence defendants arrested mainly in those zones could comprise the comparison group. In Rochester, in the early years of the program, certain arraignment judges did not refer cases to the drug court; hence defendants arraigned by one of those judges could comprise the comparison group. Executive Summary Page x

13 Survival over time: When comparing in-program to post-program recidivism rates for drug court participants, recidivism did not rise in the post-program period, but rather declined in three of the six courts. Further, when comparing participant and comparison group recidivism rates after each additional year following the initial arrest (a survival analysis ), in only one of the six courts was there clear evidence of attenuation of the drug court impact over time. This was contrary to the expectation that the magnitude of the drug court impact would peak immediately following the arrest (when judicial monitoring is most intensive); instead, results in most sites revealed positive long-term impacts persisting beyond the period of active judicial supervision. Impact of drug court graduation: Drug court graduates were far less likely than comparison defendants to recidivate in all six courts; however, drug court failures were as likely, if not more so, as comparison defendants to recidivate in four of the six courts. Translation: the benefits of drug court participation largely accrue to those who successfully graduate. Impact of arrest charge: In Rochester, participants arrested on drug charges performed better relative to the comparison group than participants arrested on a select number of non-drug charges. Although the analysis is relatively limited in scope and requires future replication, the findings suggest that drug courts may be more successful in curtailing drug-based criminal behavior (indicated by drug charges) than in curtailing criminal behavior driven by other criminal propensities. Other predictors of recidivism: Among drug court participants and comparison defendants alike, those with prior misdemeanor convictions and of younger age were generally more likely than others to recidivate across all courts and analyses. Impact on Case Processing and Case Outcomes For the same six sites, the impacts of drug courts on criminal case processing and case outcomes were analyzed. Key findings include: Initial case processing speed: Drug court cases reach initial disposition more quickly than conventional court cases. Participants in all six drug courts spent significantly less time from arrest to initial disposition/program entry than comparison defendants. Total Time Pending: When in-program participation time was included in the calculation, processing time for participants was far longer than for comparison defendants (due to the length of the drug court program). Hence to achieve positive impacts such as lower recidivism, drug courts require a significant up-front investment of court resources. Sentencing: Average sentence length stemming from the initial criminal case is sometimes shorter than in conventional prosecution and sometimes not. Whereas graduates are never sent to jail or prison, drug court failures receive longer incarceration Executive Summary Page xi

14 sentences than comparison defendants in five of the six courts. This highlights the importance of drug court graduation in reducing the use of incarceration. When considering initial case outcomes for all participants at once (combining graduates and failures), drug court participants averaged significantly shorter jail or prison sentences in three of six courts; but in one court, drug court participants were sentenced for significantly longer on average and in the remaining two courts, there was no significant difference. Program Retention Rates Retention is a key measure of program success. A one-year retention rate indicates the percentage of participants who, exactly one year after entering drug court, had either graduated or remained active in the drug court program. Earlier research finds that retention not only indicates success in treatment but also predicts future success in the form of lower post-program recidivism and drug use. Drug courts generally produce higher retention rates than community-based treatment programs accepting a combination of voluntary and court-mandated treatment participants. 4 Key findings about program retention and graduation rates across the eleven drug courts studied here include: Retention rates: The one-year retention rate exceeds the national standard of 60% for drug courts in eight of eleven courts studied (five New York State courts exceeded 70%). Long-term retention/graduation rates: When the retention period is extended to two and three years, more than half of participants in eight of eleven New York State courts are retained and the rate exceeds 60% in three courts. The three-year retention rate gives a close approximation of each drug court s final graduation rate. Predictors of Success Across five drug courts (Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Suffolk, and Syracuse), several characteristics consistently predicted both drug court graduation and lower recidivism: Participant characteristics: Consistent with earlier studies, age predicted success; older defendants were more likely to graduate and less likely to recidivate. A primary drug of heroin made graduation less likely (in two of three courts examined for this effect) and prior criminal convictions were near universally predictive of future recidivism. Also, participants entering on property charges were somewhat more likely to return to criminal activity than those entering on drug charges. 4 Belenko (1998) estimates that drug courts nationwide have an average one-year retention rate of 60%, which substantially exceeds retention rates outside of drug courts. Three-month retention rates range from just 30% to 60% across a nationwide sample of community-based treatment programs (Condelli and DeLeon 1993) and one-year retention rates range from 10-30% across a sample of therapeutic communities, a common residential treatment modality (Lewis and Ross 1994). Executive Summary Page xii

15 Immediacy: Immediate engagement in treatment (e.g., avoidance of early warranting) universally and strongly predicted drug court graduation. Importance of graduation: Graduation is itself a powerful predictor of avoiding postprogram recidivism; those who failed drug court were far more likely to recidivate in the post-program period. 5 Further, contrary to previous research with non-drug court populations, no benefit was found to spending more total time in treatment only to fail in the end. Among those who failed, more time in the drug court program (measured in four courts) or more days specifically attending treatment (measured in one court) had no impact on post-program recidivism. These results strongly point to drug court graduation as the pivotal indicator of long-term outcomes. Drug Court Policies and Participant Characteristics In considering the drug court policies and participant characteristics in eleven courts, the analysis produced four general findings: Diversity of approaches: There is no single drug court model. All eleven courts mandate community-based treatment, regular drug testing, case management visits, updates before a dedicated judge, and rewards and sanctions in response to progress or noncompliance. However, policies vary considerably across several domains legal eligibility criteria, whether a guilty plea is required prior to entry (the pre-plea or post-plea models), approach to treatment and case management, specific sanctioning practices, graduation requirements, legal consequences of graduation (e.g., case dismissal or charge reduction), and legal consequences of failure (e.g., length of resulting jail or prison sentence). Drug use patterns: The eleven courts also treat participants with different presenting problems. The median duration of drug use ranges from eight years (Manhattan and Queens) to eighteen (Brooklyn); and while the five most common primary drugs are similar statewide (heroin, crack, cocaine, marijuana, and alcohol), they are used in different proportions in each jurisdiction. Socioeconomic disadvantage: In all eleven courts, nearly half of the participants (and a much higher percentage in several) were neither employed nor in school at intake. More than a quarter of participants were currently or formerly homeless in seven courts. Female participants: The challenges faced by female drug court participants were particularly acute (including more severe drug use, treatment histories, and socioeconomic disadvantage than males), highlighting the need for supplemental services for this population. 5 The impact of graduation status on post-program recidivism was significant in three of four courts tested. In Queens, the fourth court, there was a small sample of drug court failures available for the analysis, leading the effect to be non-significant; but the odds ratio of.311 suggests the possibility of a similarly powerful impact. Executive Summary Page xiii

16 Treatment and Recovery Major findings about the treatment and recovery process include: Treatment capacity: Despite early questions about whether there is sufficient treatment capacity in New York State to serve the increased demand for treatment generated by drug courts, so far participants have been able to enter treatment rapidly. The median time from drug court intake to treatment placement is less than one month in eight of nine courts examined and less than ten days in three courts. 6 Treatment modality: Over half of participants begin in an outpatient modality, in all but two courts. When clinically feasible, most courts prefer to begin participants in outpatient treatment and then upgrade to inpatient in response to relapses or other compliance problems. Characteristics generally indicating a higher probability of inpatient care are primary drug of choice (heroin), living situation (homeless), employment status (unemployed) and age (younger defendants). Relapse: Relapse and noncompliance are common, even among those who ultimately succeed. In seven of eight courts examined, at least half of all graduates had at least one positive drug test, and many had several positives usually in the earlier stages of participation. This highlights the value of drug courts according multiple chances to participants experiencing early problems. Graduated sanctions: In responding to noncompliance, drug courts apply sanctions, such as writing an essay, observing drug court for several days from the jury box, more frequent court appearances or case management visits, community service, or short jail stays. However, drug courts vary widely in the type and severity of sanctions most frequently used. Across three courts examined in depth (Brooklyn, Queens, and Suffolk), none routinely follow a graduated sanctions model, where successive infractions are met with increasingly severe sanctions. Instead, some infractions are always met with a similar sanction response. For example, a warrant or new arrest in Brooklyn nearly always incurs a jail sanction. Also, drug court teams frequently make individualized decisions based on what they believe will be most effective with a particular participant rather than adhering to a rigid schedule of graduated sanctions. Achievements beyond substance abuse recovery: Beyond substance abuse recovery, drug courts seek to promote further achievements and lifestyle changes in the areas of employment, education, vocational training, housing, and family reunification. Consistent with these goals, across all nine courts examined, graduates were significantly more likely to be employed at graduation than intake. Also, graduates in five of the nine courts were significantly more likely to be in school at graduation than intake. 6 Many courts do experience delays placing certain categories of participants: (1) with co-occurring mental health disorders, (2) requiring residential treatment, and (3) experiencing a case processing delay between intake and formalization of drug court participant status. This last finding highlights the need for streamlined referral and intake processes designed to move cases rapidly through the system. Executive Summary Page xiv

17 Conclusion This study provides strong evidence that drug courts produce lasting changes in their participants, persisting even after the period of active judicial supervision. In general, the study reveals impacts consistent with those detected in other evaluations that covered shorter timeframes and fewer courts. This study also finds that final program status is a critical predictor of subsequent outcomes. Drug court graduates had far lower recidivism rates than comparable defendants not entering the drug court, while drug court failures had similar or, in some courts, higher recidivism rates than the comparison group. Accordingly, future research should seek to pinpoint which policies and practices can help drug courts produce both more graduates and lower recidivism rates. With drug courts demonstrating considerable diversity in their geography, policies, and practices, the next generation of studies should seek to answer why drug courts work and how they can produce positive outcomes for more of their participants. Executive Summary Page xv

18

19 PART ONE Description of Drug Court Policies and Participants

20

21 Chapter One Introduction When the Miami Drug Court opened its doors in 1989, it spawned a major shift in responding to the criminal behavior of drug-involved defendants. While the initial goals of this first drug court were largely about more efficient case processing and better pre-disposition monitoring of drug defendants, what progressively took hold were promises of substance abuse treatment, recovery, and reduced recidivism. By the mid-1990s, the drug court model embraced the ambitious agenda of breaking the costly and personally damaging cycle of addiction, crime and repeat incarceration. This agenda required both rehabilitating the individual offender and creating social benefits through improved public safety, lower recidivism, and cost savings for the criminal justice system, gained by diverting offenders away from jail or prison. This apparent potential to alleviate the scourge of addiction-related crime, along with growing disenchantment with the War on Drugs policies of the 1980s, led drug courts to spread rapidly. By 1995, 86 drug courts had opened nationwide. Eight years later, by September 2003, this figure ballooned to 1,078, with 693 drug courts serving adult criminal defendants and the others serving juveniles or respondents in family court abuse or neglect cases (Office of Justice Programs 2003). Drug courts were either operational or in planning in all fifty states, plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam (Cooper 2002). Many states, including New York, Florida, California, Ohio, Louisiana, and Missouri, initiated coordinated efforts to institutionalize drug courts statewide. Amidst this expansion is a continuing need for research concerning overall program effectiveness as well as specific policy questions such as how drug courts work, for whom they work best, what types of participants need extra attention, and from what alternative policies new drug courts can choose in devising their unique approach. As more states undertake coordinated efforts, the state becomes an appropriate level for analysis. Yet, Ohio is the only state to have completed a statewide study of its drug courts (Latessa, Shaffer and Lowenkamp 2002); and only three other studies use comparable methods to analyze results at more than one court (Goldkamp, White, and Robinson 2001; Peters and Murrin 2000; and Truitt, Rhodes, Seeherman, Carrigan, and Finn 2000). Further, only a handful of studies have examined the long-term impacts of drug courts beyond the first one or two years after program participation begins. This provides the setting for the current statewide evaluation of New York s adult drug courts. This study focuses on eleven of New York s oldest and largest programs, four from New York City (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Queens), one from New York s suburbs (Suffolk); three from medium-sized cities in the upstate area (Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo); and three from semi-rural areas in upstate (Tonawanda, Lackawanna, and Ithaca). This study also includes impact evaluations comparing case outcomes and recidivism between drug court participants and similar defendants not entering the drug court in six courts (Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Suffolk, Syracuse, and Rochester). Expanding on the literature to date, the recidivism analyses all involve long-term follow-up periods of at least three years after the initial arrest (four years in two courts) and at least one year after program completion (two years in two courts). In this introduction, we highlight key features of the adult drug court model. We also describe the local policy context, which involves an almost three year-old coordinated effort to Chapter One Page 3

22 institutionalize drug courts statewide. Lastly, we introduce the research design and organization of the report. The Adult Drug Court Model Court-mandated treatment (requiring defendants to attend treatment as part of the disposition of their case) existed well before the advent of drug courts. However, drug courts are distinctive for requiring intensive, ongoing judicial supervision of the treatment process. This can involve a wide range of practices, including: close, regular communication between treatment agencies and the court; required court appearances for monitoring and drug screening; personal interaction with the judge; a non-adversarial, team-based approach; rewards for interim progress; and sanctions for noncompliance. Judicial supervision, coupled with the overarching threat of jail or prison facing those who fail drug court, is thought to produce better treatment and recidivism outcomes than both standard prosecution and earlier court-mandated treatment approaches. In 1997, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals attempted to summarize the drug court model with a list of ten key components (NADCP 1997). The following draws from that list but is revised to emphasize common components of the New York programs featured in this report. Alternative to Incarceration: Defendants receive treatment instead of jail or prison. Early Identification and Treatment Placement: The court attempts to identify eligible defendants soon after the arrest (or probation violation where applicable) and to assist in rapidly locating a community-based treatment slot. Community-Based Treatment: Treatment is deemed essential to recovery. It occurs at either residential or outpatient facilities, where participants must complete a significant treatment stay, typically ranging from six to eighteen months. Legal Incentives to Succeed: Participants receive a positive legal incentive to graduate (e.g., case dismissal or charge reduction) and a negative incentive to avoid failing (threat of jail or prison). Collaborative Team Approach: Court and clinical staff work as a team to assist each participant s recovery; drug courts employ a non-adversarial process in the courtroom. Judicial Monitoring: Specific policies vary, but drug courts have ongoing monitoring (e.g., drug testing, case management visits, and court appearances before the drug court judge). Rewards and Sanctions: The court administers rewards in response to progress (e.g., journal, fewer days of treatment per week, fewer court appearances) and sanctions in response to noncompliance (e.g., essay, sitting in the jury box, community service, or a short jail stay). Chapter One Page 4

23 Dedicated Drug Court Judge: The same judge monitors participants throughout their participation, and the relationship between judge and participant is deemed important in motivating and assisting participants in their recovery. Policy Context: The Institutionalization of Drug Courts in New York State The drug courts studied in this report opened prior to any statewide initiative, largely through the assistance of federal funding. 1 However, this report may be seen against the backdrop of the current project to institutionalize drug courts throughout the New York State court system. New York s institutionalization efforts began in October 1999 when the state s Chief Judge, Judith S. Kaye, appointed a special commission to explore how the court system might better respond to the cycle of addiction, crime, and recidivism among drug offenders. At that time, New York s courts had been increasingly flooded with drug cases, with many believed to stem from an underlying drug use or addiction problem. For example: 2 Rising drug arrests: In 1980, there were 27,407 statewide drug arrests. That figure skyrocketed to 103,834 in 1990 and then jumped to 145,694 in The latest 2000 figure represented a dramatic 432% increase from Rising imprisonment: Coinciding with the rise in arrests was an even greater rise in the number of drug offenders sentenced to prison from just 470 offenders in 1970 to 886 in 1980 to 10,785 in 1990, and then declining to 8,521 in The latest 1999 figure still represents a 1,730% increase from 1970 and an 862% increase from High recidivism rates: Of drug offenders released from New York State prison in 1998, 34% were re-arrested within one year, and 56% were re-arrested within three years. Severe caseload implications: By fiscal year (April 1999 through March 2000), 26% of misdemeanors handled by New York State s lower courts and 41% of felony indictments involved drug possession or sales charges. Underlying drug use and addiction problems: In New York City, 76.1% of males and 77.4% of females tested positive for drugs in a 2001 sample. Based on interviews, 50.0% of the same males and 44.9% of females were engaged in heavy use of illegal drugs, defined as use in thirteen or more days of the previous thirty (ADAM 2001). After considering various policy alternatives, the special commission recommended that treatment be extended statewide to all nonviolent, drug-addicted defendants. In October 2000, the Chief Judge created a new office to implement this recommendation, the New York Office of Court Drug Treatment Programs (OCDTP), and named Deputy Chief Administrative Judge 1 Ten of the eleven drug courts considered received an implementation and / or enhancement grant from the U.S. Department of Justice between 1995 and 1998, and some received additional enhancement grants. The final drug court, Manhattan s, was assisted with federal block grant funding. 2 The source of data in this section pertaining to arrests, imprisonments, recidivism, and court caseload is the New York State Commission on Drugs and Courts (2000), citing other New York State government sources. The New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services is the original source for all recidivism data. Chapter One Page 5

24 Table 1.1. New York State Adult Drug Court Participants as of December 31, 2002 N.Y.S. Date Total Number Out on District Drug Court Implemented Participants Open Warrant Graduated Failed Focal Courts for the Statewide Evaluation NYC Bronx 3/ NYC Brooklyn 1 6/96 2, NYC Manhattan Felony 9/ NYC Queens Felony 5/ Syracuse City 1/ Ithaca City 1/ Rochester City 1/95 2, ,743 8 Buffalo City 1/96 1, Tonawanda City 4/ Lackawanna City 1/ Suffolk County 9/ Total 11,241 2, ,722 4,510 Other Operational Drug Treatment Courts NYC Queens Misdemeanor 1/ Staten Island 3/ Rensselaer County 6/ Troy City 6/ Albany City - Regional 2 1/ Ulster County 9/ Albany County 2/ Hudson City 6/ Fulton County 7/ Montgomery County 2/ Washington County 12/ Schenectady County 8/ Schenectady City 11/ Warren County 10/ Oswego County 8/ Jefferson County 2/ Utica City 10/ Tompkins County 6/ Otsego County 4/ Binghamton City 6/ Schuyler County 5/ Canandaigua City 7/ Wayne County 2/ Ontario County 6/ Niagara Falls 12/ Lockport City 9/ Jamestown City 2/ Batavia City 2/ Dunkirk City 9/ Chapter One Page 6

25 Table 1.1. Continued N.Y.S. Date Total Number Out on District Drug Court Implemented Participants Open Warrant Graduated Failed 9 Mt. Vernon 10/ Yonkers City 1/ Putnam County 1/ Beacon City 3/ Poughkeepsie City 3/ Orange County 2/ Rockland County 3 1/ White Plains City 10/ Nassau County 2/ Town and Village Drug Treatment Courts 4 Total 2,695 1, Amherst 5 9/ Cheektowaga 5 6/ Kingsbury Town 5/ Total 1, Short-Term Drug Treatment Courts Manhattan Misdemeanor 6 7/ Total Participants in New York State Drug Courts 16,136 3,784 1,084 5,684 5,584 Source : New York State Unified Court System (UCS), Special Projects Unit. Data was submitted to UCS by each drug court. 1 The Brooklyn Treatment Court numbers include 118 participants enrolled in a separate "short-term treatment" program requiring only ninety consecutive drug-free and sanction-less days of treatment. 2 Albany City includes case transferred from the Colonie Town Drug Court. The two drug courts were merged into one program. 3 Data for the Rockland program is incomplete. 4 The three drug courts listed in this section of the table are not part of the state's Unified Court System but are run by independent Town and Village Courts. 5 Data for the Amherst and Cheektowaga programs is as of September 30, The Manhattan Misdemeanor Treatment Court, as represented in this chart, mandates participants to one of three tracks respectively involving 2, 30 or 90 days of treatment. The current Manhattan Misdemeanor Treatment Court is no longer a shorttreatment program. In May 2003, Manhattan changed the program to a persistent misdemeanor drug term court. Joseph J. Traficanti, Jr. its director. The state was divided into three regions, and a dedicated project manager was hired to coordinate institutionalization efforts in each one. The OCDTP agenda included: Making treatment available to nonviolent addicted defendants in every county statewide; Implementing centralized screening to effectively identify substance-abusing defendants; Expanding court-based psychosocial assessment and monitoring capacity; Developing pilot programs for juveniles (i.e., juvenile drug courts); Designing persistent misdemeanor courts in New York City to extend court-mandated treatment to city-based misdemeanor offenders with particularly long rap sheets; Conducting a statewide training and education campaign; and Supporting statewide data collection and evaluation efforts. Chapter One Page 7

26 To date, the OCDTP has issued two progress reports covering Year One and Year Two activities (see Office of Court Drug Treatment Programs 2002, 2003). Concerning the results of statewide expansion efforts, Table 1.1 lists all operational adult drug courts statewide, along with the total number of participants enrolled through December The eleven focal courts studied in this report are distinguished in the upper portion of the table. The table shows that 16,136 defendants have been enrolled in New York s adult drug courts. Of those, 5,684 (35%) have graduated, 5,584 (35%) have failed, and the rest have yet not completed the program. Further, over the two years of the OCDTP, the number of adult drug courts increased substantially from 28 to 53. Also, comparing Year Two of the OCDTP to the year just prior to OCDTP creation, the number of new adult drug court participants rose by 36% from 2,718 to 3,701. This growth shows that for a confluence of reasons, New York s drug courts are indeed expanding and can be expected to continue doing so in the years ahead. The New York State Drug Court Evaluation The eleven drug courts covered in this report include eleven of the fourteen largest drug courts, eleven of the eighteen oldest, and the three with the most total participants enrolled to date. All serve adult criminal defendants, ages sixteen years or older. The courts were selected based on their size and for data availability considerations. 3 As Chapter Two will indicate, the courts demonstrate considerable diversity on specific program factors such as geography (e.g., urban, suburban, semi-rural), eligibility criteria, (felony or misdemeanor charges, drug or non-drug charges), program intensity (e.g., required time in treatment), and legal consequences of graduating and failing the drug court. Although the eleven courts all opened prior to statewide institutionalization efforts, they have, in many cases, served as models for the newer courts that opened as a direct impact of OCDTP efforts. Accordingly, these courts provide a reasonably representative sampling of adult drug courts now open throughout the state. Topics Covered The initial half of this report examines court policies, operations, compliance behavior, and program outcomes in all eleven courts. Information in this part of the report includes: Policies: e.g., legal eligibility criteria, clinical eligibility criteria, graduation requirements, and legal consequences of graduation and failure. Participant profile: e.g., demographics, drug use history, and prior criminal history; Time to treatment placement: time from identifying eligible offenders to locating an appropriate treatment slot; Treatment modality: e.g., relative use of different modalities (detox, residential, outpatient, etc.) and relative frequency of changing modalities during participation; Participant compliance: e.g., drug test results, prevalence of warranting, and incurring sanctions for noncompliance; 3 In Brooklyn, Queens, and Manhattan, this study exclusively focuses on drug courts serving defendants arrested on felony charges. Separate drug courts serving defendants arrested on misdemeanors opened within the past two years in those jurisdictions, but due to their recent opening, those programs are not considered here. Chapter One Page 8